More BS From the Local Paper.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Freakin' Idjits!

 

In part:

 

As we've noted before, Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, is the
right person to be at the forefront of efforts to strengthen the
nation's gun control laws.

“I'm a gun guy,” Thompson said during a recent meeting with The Press Democrat Editorial Board.
“I'm not going to give my guns up, and I don't expect anybody else to have to do that.” As he
has noted at recent public hearings and media interviews, he believes that there's plenty of room for both a strong Second Amendment right to own guns as well as sound restrictions on the types of weapons in
circulation and how they can be acquired.

Thompson, chairman of a congressional task force on gun violence, notes that
there were 600,000 guns sold in California alone in 2011, in a state
that has among the strongest gun control laws in the nation. He uses
that figure to underscore his assertion that the government is not
coming to confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens.

 

My comment:

 

The Hon. Mr. Thompson is most definitely NOT a "gun guy." He pays lip
service to honoring the 2nd, but works to circumvent it. As others have
pointed out, most of the "problems" are already illegal. The real
problem, the one not talked about, the one totally ignored by the
anti-civil rights crowd led by Sen. Feinstein, is that gun laws are not
enforced as strictly as they should be - unless some otherwise honest
citizen unwittingly breaks some obscure provision in the draconian and
byzantine warren of gun laws we have in CA.

"In addition, last
week, Thompson and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, introduced
legislation that seeks to remove guns from convicted criminals and those
considered to be dangerously mentally ill."

Geee....since there are already laws on the books to do exactly those things, how are any new laws going to
do any good? Make criminals in possession of guns double-plus ungood?
Make what is illegal even more illegaler? How about enforcing the laws
we have now? Or is that too simple for them? Of course, if they just
did that, they couldn't grandstand in the spotlight and make it seem
like they are Doing Something.

We keep hearing "Why don't you
compromise? Just meet us half way!" Well, gun owners compromised in
1934, in 1968, in 1986, in 1994, in 1995. And what do we see? Cries
for even more "compromise" on our civil rights when the laws that the
honest gun owners "compromised" on prove to do nothing to prevent crime
and violence.. Where do the o, so erudite editors of the PD want to
compromise on the First Amendment rights they fight tooth and nail for?
Should you have to submit to a background check every time you want to
post an editorial? Should there be a 10 day waiting period for you?


And the big question, which no one, not Diane "I'm an important person
so I need a gun but you don't" Feinstein, nor Babs "I'm too important to
be called Ma'am" Boxer, nor the Hon. Mike "Assault Magazine" Thompson,
nor Wes Chesbro, nor Noreen Evans, has even tried to answer for me is,
"When this round of attacks on our civil rights fails to do what you
claim, what will you do? Will you admit what study after study has
shown, that piling on more restrictions on the rights of honest citizens
has no value in reducing crime or violence, and so repeal most of those
laws? Or will you keep working to legislate the Second Amendment out
of the Constitution?"

So, editorial staff of the PD, how would YOU answer that?

Maybe a few of you can add your own comments to the editorial.